We have discussed at length how weak CCP laws are, how inadequate the "training" is, how even these minimal standards can be met fraudulently and how there's no mandate for ongoing training and assessment. Now:
Last night, North Carolinians descended on the General Assembly to say “enough”. North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (NCGV), MomsRising , Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and other groups packed the House gallery in opposition to HB 1148, a bill which would completely do away with our state permitting requirements for concealed carry.
Currently, state law requires sensible steps for anyone getting a concealed carry permit: at least eight hours of training, a background check, and a gun-range test. If HB 1148 passes, North Carolina will join eight other states in the nation that have no safety training or permitting requirements for those wishing to carry concealed weapons.
HB 1148 is reckless. It would allow people with no safety training, no background checks, and no permit to carry concealed weapons in public places.
The public has gone on record for common-sense gun regulations: 76 percent of gun owners and 88 percent of voters support safety training and a clean criminal record for those who carry a concealed handgun in public. HB 1148 ignores majority opinion, and would lower the safety standards of our gun laws, putting both the public and law enforcement at greater risk....
In the wake of the Orlando massacre, I agree with North Carolinians Against Gun Violence and majorities of both gun owners and all voters. In fact, CCP law should be made stronger - more training, more thorough evaluation, more aggressive fraud prevention and lifetime ongoing training and assessment - not weaker. Why are some gunhuggers so afraid of these things and why are y'all so afraid of the minority gunhugging extremists?
"Why are some gunhuggers so afraid of these things and why are y'all so afraid of the minority gunhugging extremists?"
I don't usually fool with petitions or letters, but this one made sense until it got to the mockery point. Gun owners are not "gunhuggers",
nor are they "extremists". You accused me once of being cowardly because I carry, however, because of your inflammatory words, it appears you are the cowardly one. Why are you so fearful of gun owners? Because someone owns a weapon (or weapons), that's no cause to "run shrieking away"®. Granted, there are licensed and unlicensed nut-cases carrying guns, but you can't group all gun owners together and declare them all of being guilty of being irresponsible.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
Not all gun owners are "gun-huggers" or extremists. But I'm pretty sure the huggers and extremists are gun owners. Not all guns or gun owners are the same, but those who refuse any type of effort to make it more difficult for dangerous violent people to legally get a gun are pretty much in the loon category.
O Really wrote:Not all gun owners are "gun-huggers" or extremists....
It's not that surprising that needed to be explained to Seth Milner, again. For example - gun owning O Really, and even Seth Milner when he opposes assault-style rifles. Sheesh, I both quoted and wrote the same thing myself in the post Seth Milner responded to.
NCGV:
The public has gone on record for common-sense gun regulations: 76 percent of gun owners and 88 percent of voters support safety training and a clean criminal record for those who carry a concealed handgun in public.
Me:
In the wake of the Orlando massacre, I agree with North Carolinians Against Gun Violence and majorities of both gun owners and all voters.
How do such plainly stated things manage to go sailing over Seth Milner's head? Maybe I should have said it 3 times, or 30.
Seth sometimes seems to adopt a role held by the Republicans, which is to disagree no matter what - and even to disagree with something they've previously agreed to if "they" try to agree. Rstrong I think mentioned it some time ago and it's still funny that Obama could drive the Republicans crazy by simply saying he agreed with their positions on whatever. They'd have to change and say their former position was totally wrong. Probably could do the same thing to Seth.
Vrede too wrote:
How do such plainly stated things manage to go sailing over Seth Milner's head? Maybe I should have said it 3 times, or 30.
Maybe you're typing to fast for me. I thought rstrong was the only one suffering from that affliction. Damn, it's catching.
O Really wrote:Seth sometimes seems to adopt a role held by the Republicans, which is to disagree no matter what - and even to disagree with something they've previously agreed to if "they" try to agree. Rstrong I think mentioned it some time ago and it's still funny that Obama could drive the Republicans crazy by simply saying he agreed with their positions on whatever. They'd have to change and say their former position was totally wrong. Probably could do the same thing to Seth.
Huh? Are you related to Barney Fife?
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
Chicago police: Customer with concealed carry license kills armed man threatening to rob store
CHICAGO (AP) — A customer with a concealed carry license shot and killed an armed man attempting to rob a Chicago neighborhood store, police said Sunday.
A masked man walked into the store and currency exchange about 7 p.m. Saturday on the city's southwest side, displayed a handgun and announced a robbery to an employee, police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said. The gunman then pointed his weapon at another employee and forced her to the back of the store.
The armed customer then fatally shot the man, identified Sunday by the Cook County medical examiner's office as 55-year-old Reginald Gildersleeve. Other details about Gildersleeve weren't released.
No one else was hurt during the incident. It wasn't immediately clear whether the customer, who has not been identified, will face charges. Guglielmi said preliminary details suggest the customer was not at fault, but that the case was under review by local prosecutors.
"We're looking at it as a self-defense issue at this point," he said.
Last month, a Michigan woman with a concealed carry license shot at shoplifters fleeing a Detroit-area Home Depot store, flattening a tire of their SUV. No one was hurt, and the suspected shoplifters were arrested several days later. The woman faces up to 90 days in jail after pleading no contest to a charge of reckless discharge of a firearm. Two other shootings in which citizens fired at lawbreakers or potential lawbreakers also happened in September in Michigan.
"It's a slippery slope" when it comes to the question of whether citizens who are licensed to carry guns should intervene in dangerous situations, if at all, Guglielmi said. (Just because a perp has a gun or weapon, even if it is in the commission of a crime; unless your life or the life of another is in dire or immediate danger, you cannot use deadly force, or even point your gun at the offender. That is assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. (ADWWI). The fleeing shoplifters/lawbreakers have a legal right to bring charges against the persons in both instances.)
"You have situations like this," he said, referring to the foiled Chicago robbery. "And you have situations that end tragically. The department is not going to advocate for what people should or shouldn't do." Dumb statement. Concealed carry holders should be trained to know what they "should or shouldn't do."
LEO should be the first advocate. But, it's Chicago.
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Last edited by Seth Milner on Thu Jun 30, 2016 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
Interesting collection of edi-toons, from slightly differing perspectives. But looking at them all in a string, one common thing jumped out - none of them look at the entire picture. All of them pick one little aspect and treat it as applying to the total complex issue. For example, the one about the terrorists using weapons other than guns implies the position that the only reason to make it more difficult to get warlike weapons is to defend against a particular type of terrorist. Not true. Many more people are killed by "domestic terrorists" or pissed of ex-employees than by the knives, pressure cookers, etc. The one that relates the specific security needs of a President (particularly one that lots of people have threatened) to the security needs of the average person is simply illogical. Anyway, it points up how badly people try to over-simplify an issue and treat it in black/white yes/no all/nothing terms. (as if anything can actually be treated that way )
To accurately oversimplify, you can use lethal force to protect your life and the lives of those around you; you can't use it to protect property. And if the perp is running away, you can't shoot him in the back. (unless of course, you're a cop and the perp is a black kid)
O Really wrote:Interesting collection of edi-toons . . .
I thought so too. There were over 200 of these on the site I visited, but I quickly got bored looking at them. I posted some of the more "sensible" ones. I am an advocate for CCW for personal protection; I am totally against ownership of weapons that cause great death and destruction.
O Really wrote: And if the perp is running away, you can't shoot him in the back. (unless of course, you're a cop and the perp is a black kid)
What you have described is not true of all officers of the law. I know many kind-hearted (and religious) lawmen who went well above the call to help others in need . . . even violent offenders. Putting a weapon in the hands of the weak-minded, who btw, infiltrate the ranks of LEO, can be prevented. Cops should be required to take annual or bi-annual rigorous mental stress testing at the expense of state and federal levels. This should weed out the gung-ho types who believe carrying a weapon is a carte-blance license to use it at will.
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
O Really wrote:... For example, the one about the terrorists using weapons other than guns implies the position that the only reason to make it more difficult to get warlike weapons is to defend against a particular type of terrorist. Not true....
Look at it as an informed, free market decision. Yes, there are alternatives, but there are reasons that most choose assault-style weapons or guns in general, including cost, ease of access, concealment, portability and operation, and efficiency in killing. Sure, a toddler miiiight disassemble a lamp and electrocute her/himself, but that's no reason to not toddler-proof your outlets.
Not only that, but a gun is insurance for the shooter; i.e., the shooter has a very slim chance of being harmed him/herself.
He/she can stand back out of retaliatory reach of the victim(s); unless the shooter happens to be this idiot:
Don't take life too seriously; No one gets out alive
O Really wrote: And if the perp is running away, you can't shoot him in the back. (unless of course, you're a cop and the perp is a black kid)
What you have described is not true of all officers of the law. I know many kind-hearted (and religious) lawmen who went well above the call to help others in need . . . even violent offenders. Putting a weapon in the hands of the weak-minded, who btw, infiltrate the ranks of LEO, can be prevented. Cops should be required to take annual or bi-annual rigorous mental stress testing at the expense of state and federal levels. This should weed out the gung-ho types who believe carrying a weapon is a carte-blance license to use it at will.
It's not that all officers would shoot the kid in the back - it's just that if they did, they'd almost certainly get away with it. The rest of us, not so much.
Sure, if the perp is violent and just tried to kill somebody, I've got no real problem with the cop shooting him while he's trying to run away. But over th past some years, the threshold on stopping flight has gone way down to the point that now they're "justified" in shooting a kid who tries to run away from a traffic stop.
Vrede too wrote:We have discussed at length how weak CCP laws are, how inadequate the "training" is, how even these minimal standards can be met fraudulently and how there's no mandate for ongoing training and assessment. Now:
Last night, North Carolinians descended on the General Assembly to say “enough”. North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (NCGV), MomsRising , Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and other groups packed the House gallery in opposition to HB 1148, a bill which would completely do away with our state permitting requirements for concealed carry.
Currently, state law requires sensible steps for anyone getting a concealed carry permit: at least eight hours of training, a background check, and a gun-range test. If HB 1148 passes, North Carolina will join eight other states in the nation that have no safety training or permitting requirements for those wishing to carry concealed weapons.
HB 1148 is reckless. It would allow people with no safety training, no background checks, and no permit to carry concealed weapons in public places.
The public has gone on record for common-sense gun regulations: 76 percent of gun owners and 88 percent of voters support safety training and a clean criminal record for those who carry a concealed handgun in public. HB 1148 ignores majority opinion, and would lower the safety standards of our gun laws, putting both the public and law enforcement at greater risk....
In the wake of the Orlando massacre, I agree with North Carolinians Against Gun Violence and majorities of both gun owners and all voters. In fact, CCP law should be made stronger - more training, more thorough evaluation, more aggressive fraud prevention and lifetime ongoing training and assessment - not weaker. Why are some gunhuggers so afraid of these things and why are y'all so afraid of the minority gunhugging extremists?
Kill HB 1148.
Sincerely,
The Short Session adjourned, HB 1148 was not passed. Poor gunhuggers.
:cussing:
Poor gunhuggers. 